Brad East, associate professor of theology at Abilene Christian University, makes this astute observation: “Something has happened in the last 25 years in American evangelicalism—what I believe to be a massive generational shift . . . I have in mind low-church Protestant traditions in the United States: churches centered on the Bible, evangelism, and personal faith in Jesus; often but not necessarily nondenominational, with moderate to minimal emphasis on sacraments, liturgy, and ecclesiastical authority; and marked by a revivalist style as well as conservative beliefs about sex, marriage, and other social issues.

In early May 2024, President Biden’s Justice Department began reviewing marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug, moving to reclassify it as a less dangerous Schedule III drug—on par with anabolic steroids and Tylenol with codeine—which would provide tax benefits and a financial boon to the pot industry. This action merely reflects the national trend of accommodating American culture to the legalization of marijuana. In 2014, for example, an editorial on the front page of the New York Times argued intensely for the legalization of marijuana and the removal of all penalties against the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana, let alone the possession of marijuana in its many forms.

One of the key elements of the new world order emerging in the 21st century is Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Putin is a delusional tyrant who is building a fascist state that loathes democracy, freedom and individualism. He is not a friend; he is not to be emulated; he is not a defender of Christian values. He is a ruthless dictator, who regards Stalin as a Russian hero who needs to be restored to his rightful place as the savior of Russia. The war in Ukraine is the beginning of his delusional vision of a new world order. These delusional ambitions of Putin, the fascist tyrant, cannot be ignored.

For those of us who lived through the anti-apartheid protests in the 1980s, or the Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960s and 1970s, the current tumult—and the way it has collided with broader social and political upheaval—echoes some especially tense times in our country’s history. But, these demonstrations also raise a profoundly important question: Why has the war in Gaza so galvanized American college students in the first place, compared with other crises or conflicts where pressure on American leaders may have had more potential for effect?

A new medical phrase has entered our vocabulary—“transgender medicine.” It refers to medical treatments for children who identify as transgender. The treatments at issue include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, although this is relatively rare. The Economist summarizes these treatments: “Puberty blockers are drugs that delay the onset of puberty. Cross-sex hormones stimulate the development of opposite-sex characteristics: estrogen causes males to grow larger breasts, testosterone gives females bigger muscles and deeper voices, among other things.”

At the heart of the pro-life movement is the deep-seated conviction that from the moment of conception, an unborn child is a separate human life. Although the baby is completely dependent on the mother, it is still a separate human life. The baby’s life is not more important than the mother’s—which is why the best-drafted pro-life laws protect the life and physical health of the mother—but it possesses incalculable worth nonetheless. “Absent extreme circumstances, the unborn child must not be intentionally killed. And while pro-life Americans can disagree about how to protect unborn children—whether it’s primarily through legal restrictions, primarily through measures meant to reduce the demand for abortion, or primarily through a combination of abortion restrictions or financial assistance to mothers and families—there has long been agreement on that one core claim: From the moment of conception, an unborn child is a person worth protecting.”

Concern, even anxiety, about the upcoming generation is a given in American history. For example, in 1935, George Leighton and Richard Hellman in Harper’s lamented the apathy, disenchantment and criminality of high school students in America. In 1982, Neil Postman published The Disappearance of Childhood in which he argued that teens were adopting adult vices (e.g., heavy drinking, crime and sexual immorality). He blamed television. In that same spirit of concern and anxiety, a new book by Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness, gives focus to smartphones and social media.

There seems to be a broad consensus within the United States about the war in Gaza, structured around two propositions. First, after the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel has the right to defend itself and defeat Hamas. Second, the way Israel is doing this is “over the top,” in President Biden’s words. The vast numbers of dead and starving children are gut wrenching, the devastation is overwhelming, and it’s hard not to see it all as indiscriminate. Which leads to an obvious question: If the current Israeli military approach is inhumane, what’s the alternative? Is there a better military strategy Israel can use to defeat Hamas without a civilian blood bath? As we approach answering these questions, I want to place these wrenching questions into an important context.

Opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine claim the country persecutes Christians. “When American leaders frame this as a war for democracy and human rights, it would be good if the recipient of the aid was a little bit more careful of human rights, including religious liberties,” Sen. J.D. Vance said in an interview in mid-March. Ukraine “is doing some pretty bad stuff,” he adds, citing “news reports of priests being investigated, church assets being seized and priests being arrested.” Ukrainians have “invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests,” according to Sen. Rand Paul. Rep. Paul Gosar says Kyiv has “banned Ukraine’s oldest and largest denomination, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

Two years of full-scale war in Ukraine have reshaped the military alliance called NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): Finland and Sweden have now joined, an unintended consequence, as afar as Vladimir Putin was concerned, of his brutal aggression against Ukraine. It is probably correct to argue that NATO is now more united than it has been since the fall of the USSR in the 1990s. NATO announced this month that two-thirds of the alliance’s members have met the goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. That is a marked increase from a decade ago. But, at the same time, former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, said this month that he was willing to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” against NATO allies that do not fulfill their commitments on military spending.